meta_jobs_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a page of public sitemap data, lists the fields returned, and explicitly states there is no filtering. It also implies read-only behavior ('Returns'), which is appropriate for a listing tool. It does not detail response format or ordering, but this is sufficient for a simple catalog endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Meta Jobs catalog listing'), and every clause adds value: what is returned, its key fields, and when to use which tool. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a simple input schema (2 optional params) and no output schema, but the description compensates by listing return fields and providing use cases (enumeration, change tracking). It does not describe pagination beyond the schema, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'page' and 'page_size' are described in the schema with defaults and max. The description itself adds nothing beyond mentioning 'page', so it does not elevate the semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Returns'), a resource ('Meta's own public job sitemap'), and the exact scope ('every open requisition's id, canonical URL, and last-modified timestamp'). It also explicitly contrasts with 'search' by noting there is 'no team/location/keyword filtering', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_jobs_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for full-catalog enumeration or change tracking via last_modified; use search when you need to filter by team, technology, location, employment type, or keyword.' This clearly states when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.